If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: SIAP: Pacers reach deal with city? (link)

I don't say this enough but I'll say it now.

Thank God for Herb Simon (& Mel prior to his passing).

We have an owner who is committed to keeping the team here. I know there are arguments to be made for every side to this story but I believe in my heart that the Simons took on the franchise at the behest of Mayor Hudnut back in the 80's for the beneifit of the city/state and that they have kept it here all of these years.

Also thank you to the city of Indianapolis for doing what they didn't have to do. Mayor Ballards group has been involved with this from day one and seemed committed to keeping the team here as well. (BTW, this is not a political endoresment and is not talking politics. This simply is recognizing what is.)

Let's put all of this to bed now and get back to rebuilding the franchise.

Re: SIAP: Pacers reach deal with city? (link)

We have an owner who is committed to keeping the team here. I know there are arguments to be made for every side to this story but I believe in my heart that the Simons took on the franchise at the behest of Mayor Hudnut back in the 80's for the beneifit of the city/state and that they have kept it here all of these years.

And I won't be here to see the dayIt all dries up and blows awayI'd hang around just to seeBut they never had much use for meIn Levelland. (James McMurtry)

And anyway, the Pacers franchise was losing money previously. Getting the better deal from the city only means maybe now the franchise will break even or turn a small profit, either immediately or after the new CBA drives down the payroll.

There isn't any infusion of new surplus cash here.

I'm glad there's a deal, but I don't like this one much. I thought the city should have taken back the facility. It belongs to the city. The Pacers ought to have just rented space in it without further obligation to manage it.

I wonder if there is any sort of kicker in the new agreement saying PS&E has to work harder to keep the building busy.

And we all know what that means:

Spoiler:

Last edited by Putnam; 07-12-2010 at 07:44 AM.

And I won't be here to see the dayIt all dries up and blows awayI'd hang around just to seeBut they never had much use for meIn Levelland. (James McMurtry)

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Putnam For This Useful Post:

Re: SIAP: Pacers reach deal with city? (link)

Yay. The Fieldhouse would've seemed awfully empty. Feels like the Pacers have touched bottom and kicked up and off. Now if one or two guys from the youth movement can just make the jump to good starter....

Re: SIAP: Pacers reach deal with city? (link)

The Indiana Pacers are staying in Indianapolis, but it will cost taxpayers at least $33.5 million over the next three years.

- Matt Kryger / The Star

RELATED INFORMATION
Deal's highlights
» The CIB will give $30 million over the next three seasons to the Pacers.
» The CIB will make a minimum of $3.5 million in capital improvements to Conseco Fieldhouse.
» The Pacers will continue to operate the fieldhouse and keep revenues from game and nongame events.
» If the Pacers move before the 2013-14 season, they will repay $30 million to the CIB by June 30, 2013.
» The amount the Pacers repay will be reduced for each season that they continue to play at Conseco: If they play the 2013-14 season, they'll repay $28 million; by 2018-19, that would fall to $1 million.
Sources: Capital Improvement Board, mayor's office

Pacers' deal vs. Colts' deal
Here's a look at some highlights from the Colts' contract and the Pacers' "interim bridge agreement."

Length of deal
» Pacers: During the 2010-11, 2011-12 and 2012-13 seasons, the team will play home games at Conseco Fieldhouse. After that, the team could leave if its losses are greater than $2 million per year but would have to pay a fee starting at roughly $50 million and diminishing with each year through the end of the contract in 2019.
» Colts: Must play all home games in Lucas Oil Stadium until 2034.

Operation of arena
» Pacers: The team continues to operate Conseco Fieldhouse. The Capital Improvement Board will make a minimum of $3.5 million in capital improvements to the fieldhouse, but that could grow depending on how much money the CIB received in 2009 from an expanded sports taxing district.
» Colts: The CIB is responsible for maintenance of the stadium and game-day expenses, such as security. The Colts pay no rent and no maintenance costs.

Other financial arrangements
» Pacers: The CIB will give $10 million each of the next three years to Pacers Sports & Entertainment to help reduce building operating expenses at Conseco Fieldhouse. The Pacers will continue to receive non-Pacers-related revenue derived from events at the fieldhouse, as well as revenues from a stadium name, signs and sponsorships in the stadium.
» Colts: The team keeps rights to all football-related revenue in the stadium, as well as half the annual nonfootball revenue, up to $3.5 million. The team receives all revenues from a stadium name, signs and sponsorships in the stadium. The city no longer must make up the difference between the team's annual revenues and the NFL median.

Leaving town?
» Pacers: If the Pacers leave before the 2013-14 season, they will repay $30 million to the CIB by June 30, 2013.
» Colts: The team is committed to stay put for 30 years.

Sources: Capital Improvement Board, mayor's office, Star research
The city and the Pacers are expected today to announce an agreement hailed by some as an important step in protecting the financial state of the city but criticized by others as a multimillion-dollar bailout of a professional sports team and its billionaire owner.

The deal comes after months of negotiations between the NBA franchise and the Capital Improvement Board, which operates the city's sports venues. It supplements the existing contract between the parties, which lasts through 2019.

The idea of providing money to a sports franchise has incited criticism by some, but city leaders insisted they have been tough negotiators. They didn't agree to cover the full operating cost of Conseco Fieldhouse, estimated at $15 million to $18 million per year, or the roughly $25 million in capital improvements the Pacers said were needed at the fieldhouse. And they locked in what they called an important addition to the Downtown economy for three years.

"The mayor has said we need to protect the taxpayer and we need to protect the tax base," said Robert Vane, deputy chief of staff and communications director for Mayor Greg Ballard. "This agreement does both."
Under the terms, control of Conseco Fieldhouse -- and revenues from all events there -- will remain with the team, but unlike the current contract, the city will chip in $10 million per year for fieldhouse operations for the next three years. The city also will pay at least $3.5 million for capital improvements at the fieldhouse, an amount that has the potential to increase by up to $4.7 million.

In exchange, the Pacers must stay in Indianapolis through the 2012-13 basketball season or pay back the entire $30 million. The team also would be on the hook for a portion of that $30 million if it left before its contract expired in 2019.

For example, if the team left in 2016, it would pay back $19 million; if it left in 2018, it would pay back $7 million. That would be in addition to the termination fees -- estimated at $20 million-- spelled out in the existing agreement.

If the Pacers stay through the end of their current contract, which ends in 2019, they would not have to pay any of the money back.
So, is the new agreement a good deal for taxpayers? The answer to that question seemed to depend entirely on whom you asked Sunday evening.
"I think we have gone so far overboard in subsidizing professional sports in this city that it's insane," said Fred McCarthy, a local political blogger and nearly 50-year Indianapolis resident. "I just think it's ridiculous that brilliant businessmen who have made themselves billionaires in the market, in the business world, can operate a business in a rent-free building and continue to lose money while they're doing it."

Pat Andrews, vice president of the Marion County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations, put it differently.

"It sounds like more sports welfare," she said.

Indianapolis resident Elizabeth Koeppen, 82, said she could live with a deal to benefit the Pacers if the city was not struggling to find money to fund other city services, such as libraries, buses and basic infrastructure.

"I think we should attend to the serious problems in our city," she said, "before we spend money for the Pacers."
Funding for the CIB comes from taxes on things such as auto rentals, cigarettes, hotels, and food and beverages -- and not property taxes, which help fund many other city services.

But while some argue the city can't afford to help the Pacers, the city contends that it can't afford not to.
A study commissioned by the CIB this spring showed the team drives about $55 million worth of economic impact in Indianapolis each year, in addition to the more than 900 jobs and millions in tax revenue. Some sports economists, however, say such studies overstate the financial impact of professional sports teams.

Others say that, beyond the economic boost, there are benefits that are hard to measure, such as the impact on the city's image.
"The Pacers, the symphony, the Colts, the museums, the mall . . . give people reasons why they want to come live here, especially bright young people," said Jim Morris, president of Pacers Sports & Entertainment. "The best cities are competing for investment capital; they're competing for jobs."

Indianapolis residents such as Mike Smith, 55, agree. He said helping the team is a $30 million investment that brings the community together, benefits the local economy and provides entertainment for fans such as him.

"I don't know what I'd do without them," said Smith, a longtime Pacers fan.

T. Noble Foster, a professor of business law at Seattle University who has studied Seattle's negotiations with its former NBA team, called the deal a good move for the team and the city.

"They keep the team in town, and that was what they wanted," Foster said. "And it didn't cost as much as they were told it was going to cost, so I think they need to be happy with that for the moment."

Still, Foster said he expects the Pacers won't be satisfied with the $30 million and likely will seek the $10 million per year in payments beyond the end of this three-year agreement.

Morris did not say the team would ask for more money in three years. But he said Pacers owner Herb Simon was committed to keeping the team in the city for the next 30 years and hoped to come to an agreement that would make that possible.

"I hope the parties will have additional conversations to ensure the Pacers will have a long-term relationship with the Capital Improvement Board," Morris said, "and to ensure whoever owns them next will keep the team in Indianapolis."

The city also wouldn't predict whether more funding would be needed in three years -- or whether providing it would be possible. The idea behind a short-term funding plan was to allow room to reassess after new assets such as the expanded Indiana Convention Center and the J.W. Marriott hotel come on board.

Also, an NBA collective bargaining agreement expected next summer could put the Pacers in a more favorable financial position.

Simon first asked the city for help in the spring of 2009, when he said the team had lost about $200 million since he and his brother, the late Mel Simon, bought it in 1983. It's estimated the team is losing about $30 million per year.

For this year, the board's efforts to cut its spending and increase revenues have provided enough money to make the $10 million payment, said CIB President Ann Lathrop. As of May, the CIB had brought in $3.8 million more in revenue than budgeted and spent $7.5 million less than budgeted.

Much of the additional revenue came from additional sales and income taxes from an expanded sports district passed by the legislature as part of an assistance package last year, and from events such as the Final Four NCAA men's basketball tournament.

Lathrop acknowledged that sustaining those revenue sources, even with the new hotel and convention space, will depend on the economy, but she said the board also is working to cut costs over the long term through things such as information technology consolidation and energy cost savings.

The CIB and the three-member board that issues its debt service are expected to vote on the proposal Friday.

Because the CIB is finding the money within its existing budget, the City-County Council does not have to sign off on this year's spending. But the council can control whether the CIB makes future payments through the budgeting process.

Edit: Sorry, didn't see BoomBaby33's post when I posted. Anyway, here's the article if you're too lazy to click the link.

Re: SIAP: Pacers reach deal with city? (link)

I don't think this changes anything to what I think is going on. At least not judging by legible parts of the paper. Actually, this would be an expected step...

I agree. I don't see where this changes anything. It doesn't mention anything about a change in ownership, just moving the Pacers out of Indy. With a new contract with the City of Indianapolis, possible new ownership would have an agreement in place with the City concerning Conseco. This new contract ties up a loose end to help Herb Simon sell the Pacers. In the event Herb Simon sells the Pacers, the City has an agreement that would be costly for new ownership to move the Pacers from Indy. That's the main thing, protecting the City from the Pacers being moved, not Herb Simon selling the Pacers. I don't see this new agreement changes anything in regards to Herb Simon selling the Pacers if he decides that is what he wants to do.

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to BillS For This Useful Post:

Re: SIAP: Pacers reach deal with city? (link)

I don't have the time to really get into this today. I'm glad that those of you who really thought the Pacers would have an opportunity to go elsewhere in this economic climate feel better now. Of course, in 3 years the talk'll start right up again, and just like with the federal bailouts, a precedent has been set.

Ooh, and please don't give me, "Yeah, PS&E wanted $15M in free money a year, and the city only gave them $10M. That's a tremendous deal."

Re: SIAP: Pacers reach deal with city? (link)

For the approximate $10 or so per man, woman, and child that this agreement costs the taxpayers per year, why don't the Pacers send a $10 off voucher to each and every one of them somehow as compensation, with that voucher being good towards any ticket purchase or Pacers merchandise purchase they make? That way they can say that they are giving back to the community while promoting the franchise.